Podberesky v. Kirwan
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
38 F.3d 147 (1994)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
The University of Maryland at College Park (defendant) was a state-funded university that once operated a segregated campus. According to the university, the institution continued to have a poor reputation among the African American community. In addition, African American students were underrepresented in the university’s student body and had low retention and graduation rates. The campus was perceived by African American students as hostile. The university offered two separate merit-based scholarship programs. The first program, the Francis Scott Key program, was open to all students. The second program, the Banneker program, was open to African American students only and had less rigorous requirements than the Key program. Daniel Podberesky was not an African American but met all other qualifications for the Banneker scholarship program. Podberesky did not qualify for the Key scholarship program due to its more rigorous standards. Podberesky filed a lawsuit against the university. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the university, finding that the Banneker program was narrowly tailored to remedy the effects of past segregation by the university. Podberesky appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Widener, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.